Monday, August 26, 2013

Last week, a colleague of mine
shared a US Department of Justice report on a list-serve to which we both
belong (see the report at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/242952.pdf).
This report, entitled “An Evaluation of Sexual offender Residency Restrictions
in Michigan and Missouri” was completed by Beth M. Huebner, Timothy S. Bynum,
Jason Rydberg, Kimberly Kras, Eric Grommon, and Breanne Pleggenkuhle, variously
of the University of Missouri-St. Louis, Michigan State University, Indiana
University Purdue University-Indianapolis, and Southern Illinois
University-Carbondale. As the title suggests, these authors report findings
associated with their research into the efficacy of residency restrictions on
sexual offender risk and re-entry.

Residency restrictions have been
a particularly popular means of controlling and containing sexual offenders in
the community. Depending on the jurisdiction, the typical approach is to limit
the distance within which sexual offenders can legally be regarding schools,
playgrounds, daycare centers, or other places children might congregate. Such
restrictions have significant impact on where offenders may live, work, or engage
in other activities.

On the surface, such practices
seem quite reasonable. If someone has engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct
with a child, then the amount of direct or indirect contact they might have
with children should be limited or prohibited. However, as yet, such practices
have not been subject to much scientific scrutiny. Moreover, of those
investigations of residency restrictions completed to date, the findings suggest
that there is little or no effect on outcome—sexual recidivism. Indeed, some
have suggested that such restrictions may contribute to reduced social and
community stability for released offenders (Levenson & Hern, 2007; Mercado,
Alvarez, & Levenson, 2008; Socia, 2011; Willis & Grace, 2008, 2009),
and that this potentially translates into an increase in risk, not the decrease
intended. This study, completed in Illinois and Missouri, adds another voice to
the chorus of research suggesting that residency restrictions are having little
or none of their intended effects.

In order to complete their
research, Huebner and associates identified 1,703 sexual offenders in MI and
matched them to 1,703 non-sexual offenders. Additionally, they identified 2,265
sexual offenders and 2,265 unmatched but markedly similar non-sexual offenders.
The following are key findings noted in the executive summary:

There was a decline in the
number of individuals living in restricted areas, including near schools or
daycare centers, but the differences were not statistically significant.

Analyses of residential patterns
did not support previous research which suggests that residency restrictions
would lead to large displacement of offenders to rural areas; however,
supplemental analyses in Michigan found that sexual offenders – especially
child molesters – moved more often relative to comparable non-sexual offenders
after the implementation of residency restrictions.

If residency restrictions have
an effect on recidivism, the relationship is small.

Given the very low base rate of
sexual recidivism (3%), a longer period of follow-up would be required to
better consider the long-term recidivism patterns of sexual offenders,
particularly as they pertain to sexual offense convictions.

Based on their findings, Huebner
et al. concluded that residency restrictions had little effect on recidivism.
Additionally, they noted that their analyses provided confirmation that such
restrictions may lead to reduced reintegration potential for released sexual
offenders. They make several policy recommendations:

Huebner et al. suggest that
jurisdictions consider the use of risk assessment instruments when implementing
restrictions as a means to identify those offenders most in need of such
measures.

There is a need to evaluate the
length of the residency restrictions, considering the potential value-added to
community safety when balanced against offender stability.

Stable housing services should
be the central focus of reentry planning, particularly for sexual offender
populations.

More research is needed on the
provision of transitional housing.

Enhanced research is required
regarding residential movement patterns of sexual offenders over an extended
period of time.

Huebner et al. also make
suggestions for future research, including investigation of how residency
restrictions might assist in risk management if implemented with that minority
of released offenders who are at higher risk. Additionally, they call for
additional research regarding the factors that might influence sexual offender desistance;
particularly, if residency restrictions might actually increase risk in some
cases. Huebner and her associates also suggest that we need better research regarding
the costs and benefits of residency restrictions, including both supervision
costs and those associated with relocation and collateral consequences for
offenders and the communities in which they reside.

Of course, there are many
complicated issues associated with the community risk management of persons who
have sexually offended. Where they should live, with whom they live, and in
what proximity to potential victims, are clearly topics of popular and legislative
discussion. However, this report demonstrates, yet again, that it is important
to evaluate the pros and cons of such practices for the various stakeholder
groups likely to be affected. While residency restrictions may provide some
degree of solace to the community-at-large, it is by no means clear that this
solace is prudent, given the findings of studies like this. In my humble opinion,
the solution is not likely to be found in severely limiting or ostracizing all
sexual offenders, regardless of offense history and level of risk. Rather, we
may find that providing support and accountability in exchange for better sexual
and self-regulation is an equitable trade (see Wilson, McWhinnie, & Wilson,
2008). Huebner et al.’s suggestion of using standardized means to identify and
focus on those offenders who pose the greatest degree of risk is wise, and
consistent with what we already know to be so, given the tenets of Risk,
Need, Responsivity-based approaches (see Andrews & Bonta, 2010) with which
so many of us in the risk management field are already intimately familiar.

Kieran McCartan, PhD

Chief Blogger

David Prescott, LICSW

Associate blogger

Translate

The Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (http://atsa.com/) is an international, multi-disciplinary organization dedicated to preventing sexual abuse. Through research, education, and shared learning ATSA promotes evidence based practice, public policy and community strategies that lead to the effective assessment, treatment and management of individuals who have sexually abused or are risk to abuse.

The views expressed on this blog are of the bloggers and are not necessarily those of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research & Treatment, or Sage Journals.

Disclaimer

ATSA does not endorse, support, represent or guarantee the completeness, truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any Content posted. ATSA does not necessarily or automatically endorse any opinions expressed within this blog. You understand that by reading this blog, you may be exposed to content or opinions that might be offensive, harmful, inaccurate or otherwise inappropriate. Under no circumstances will ATSA be liable in any way for any Content, including, but not limited to, any errors or omissions in any Content, or any loss or damage of any kind incurred as a result of the use of any Content or opinions posted, emailed, transmitted, or otherwise made available via this blog.